SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
climate activism
Energy Transfer Is Putting Free Speech and Climate Activism on Trial
A lawsuit against Greenpeace in North Dakota threatens the existence of all nonprofits.
Feb 21, 2025
Imagine a world without effective nonprofit advocacy. When a corporation exploits a local community, no one speaks up or resists. Everyone is too afraid of the weaponized legal system, too vulnerable to liability. The ultra-wealthy take whatever they want and leave others to pick up the pieces. Opposition and resistance have been extinguished.
Those are the risks of a lawsuit against Greenpeace, now going to trial in North Dakota after a seven-year legal battle. Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, is seeking $300 million for tort damages, including defamation. Energy Transfer’s previous attempt to sue Greenpeace under federal anti-racketeering laws was blocked by the courts. But the state charges have been upheld, with a trial beginning on February 24, and free-speech advocates are raising alarms about the dangerous precedent that would follow a loss for Greenpeace, or even from the trial proceeding at all.
I recently spoke with Scott W. Badenoch, Jr., a visiting attorney at the Environmental Law Institute. He’s part of a team of distinguished international legal scholars, including Steven Donziger and Jeanne Mirer, who have launched a Trial Monitoring Committee to ensure the case against Greenpeace proceeds fairly and transparently.
While the Trial Monitors and some activists will be on the ground in North Dakota, we need to make noise online and in the media, ensuring that as many people as possible know what’s at stake.
As Badenoch described it, the court is trying to maintain “as much of a black box as you could possibly create in the U.S. court system.” Judge James Gion recently denied a motion to allow live streaming of the trial proceedings.
Instead, Badenoch said the case should be dismissed immediately. The allegations attempt to hold Greenpeace responsible for the actions of activists and volunteers unaffiliated with the group. Legal advocates and climate organizers have called it an unconstitutional SLAPP suit, intended to burden Greenpeace with costly legal fees, shut them down, and restrict the free speech of nonprofits more broadly. “There is absolutely no justification for this trial happening in this court, at this time, with this judge,” Badenoch said. “Just none.”
In a press release from the Trial Monitoring Committee, Steven Donziger pointed to recent trends, writing that “this appears to be part of a broader strategy by the fossil fuel industry to weaponize the courts against activists and weaken organizations like Greenpeace in retaliation for their advocacy.”
While the trial itself presents dangers, the recent actions of Energy Transfer have also brought accusations of jury-tampering. In October, residents of rural Morton County, North Dakota, where the trial will be set, received what appeared to be a legitimate newspaper. However, it contained almost exclusively critical attacks on Greenpeace and the pipeline protests, while praising Energy Transfer. The “newspaper” was actually a political mailer from a company called Metric Media, with links to electioneering and fossil fuel companies, as reported in the North Dakota News Cooperative. Even more concerning, financial records link the CEO of Energy Transfer, Texas billionaire Kelcy Warren, to the creation of the fake newspaper. It looks a like blatant attempt to taint the jury pool. Despite this, Judge Gion refused to allow Greenpeace to investigate the origins of the biased mailer.
The crucial role of the Trial Monitoring Committee is to bring attention to these abuses of due process. “We are going to monitor this case one way or the other,” Badenoch told me. “But the more that [Judge Gion] withholds transparency and access from us, the more obvious it is that something is going on that they don’t want people to see.”
Meanwhile, the stakes of the case extend far beyond Greenpeace. If Energy Transfer is successful, Badenoch said, the precedent would be cataclysmic for nonprofit advocacy. An organization could be held liable for any actions by any activists, however tenuously affiliated. “Literally every social justice, climate justice, civil rights, human rights organization across the country—and maybe the planet—is at risk of legal murder in a courtroom, where an organization is put to death by a SLAPP suit.”
As members of the public, that means we all have a responsibility to advocate for transparency, fairness, and ideally dismissal of Energy Transfer’s lawsuit. While the Trial Monitors and some activists will be on the ground in North Dakota, we need to make noise online and in the media, ensuring that as many people as possible know what’s at stake. Badenoch was emphatic about this: “The number one thing is to bring attention to the case. Don’t let Greenpeace die with a whimper.”
In a time of chaos and distraction, it’s all too easy to let cases like this one go unnoticed. But the risks are simply too dire to ignore. “It’s absolutely terrifying for advocacy in this country and beyond. The risks are really hard to overstate,” Badenoch told me. “If Greenpeace is allowed to die in this field in North Dakota, then every single nonprofit is next in line.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hear Me Out: In 2025, Climate Activists Should Spend Less Time on Climate
If you’re a climate activist who doesn’t know what to do for the next four years, the answer is remarkably simple: Join other movements.
Jan 09, 2025
Ever since my first foray into climate activism in 2019, I have dreaded the year 2025. In my mind, it’s always been the Big Deadline.
The 2015 Paris agreement concluded that greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 if we have any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
And yet, now that we’re standing at the precipice of this once-far off deadline, we are still so far from the meaningful climate action necessary to fend off unstoppable climate catastrophe. Indeed, we’ve just worsened our chances at a survivable future.
We need to build a strong left to fight fascism during Trump’s presidency and to build a just green future in its aftermath.
The U.S. became the largest oil producer in 2018 and continues to expand domestic fossil fuel production. American citizens just elected a fascist president who has promised to gut the EPA and establish U.S. “energy dominance,” but the Democrat who supposedly could have saved us from Donald Trump refused to ban fracking and praised U.S. oil production.
Technically, I should be panicking. I certainly was when my college graduation last May was preceded by some headlines announcing the 1.5°C limit had already been reached. But now, as a climate activist in New York City, I find myself surprisingly calm.
This calm isn’t simply due to local climate wins, though I have celebrated those. Gov. Kathy Hochul just signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law, which will require fossil fuel companies to pay billions into a fund to help New Yorkers recover from climate disasters. In other words, New York will force polluters to pay to clean up their own messes. This is a huge step in holding fossil fuel companies accountable.
Yet my optimism arises out of a different trend in the climate movement: Climate activists are (finally) showing up for other movements.
Historically, the climate movement has attempted to isolate itself from other political and social issues, arguing that climate policy is “just science.” This majority-white movement has failed to see that fossil fuel emissions are part of a larger history of the Global North colonizing and exploiting both people and the planet for decades. The climate crisis is a symptom of a broader exploitative system. To change that system, we need a united left that will fight for all people—not just those who identify as environmentalists.
In 2020, climate activists were rightfully berated for not showing up enough for the Black Lives Matter movement. Thankfully, I think many climate activists heard that message because today, they have come out in droves for Palestine.
Many of the college students who organized campus encampments last spring to urge their school administrators to divest from Israel and the U.S. imperial war machine were students who had previously organized for climate justice. I witnessed this firsthand at the Claremont Colleges when I was a senior: The student organizations demanding fossil fuel divestment fell to the wayside as the crisis in Gaza intensified. Globally, many climate organizations chose to speak out and take direct action to call for a cease-fire in Gaza.
But none of these climate activists had stopped caring about the climate. In fact, they often pointed out that Israel’s actions were not just genocide, but ecocide as well. The onslaught of bombs dropped on Gaza will contaminate the soil and groundwater in the region for decades. And the destruction has produced at least 54.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions of 16 coal-fired power plants.
Climate activists cannot claim to fight for a just future and stay silent about genocide. “If we, as climate activists, aren’t able to see and speak up against the current marginalization and oppression and killing of people today, then I don’t think we should be able to call ourselves climate justice [activists],” climate champion Greta Thunberg told Al Jazeera in early December 2024.
As Trump prepares to enter the White House, we will undoubtedly see more people oppressed and killed. Among the many groups who are vulnerable under his administration are undocumented immigrants, whom Trump has vowed to round up and deport.
Migrant justice has long been intertwined with climate justice. As climate change makes many areas around the world uninhabitable, climate refugees have no choice but to leave their home.
In response to Trump’s election, climate organizers Jeff Ordower and Ahmed Gaya called on their fellow activists to bring their experiences of shutting down pipelines and coal plants to fight the incarceration and deportation we can expect under Trump. Climate activists should answer this call: The struggles for migrant justice and climate justice are intertwined, and we must meet the needs of the current moment.
“[Climate is] not more urgent than kids being ripped away from their families and dying in the desert—anyone who tries to win that argument is monstrous themselves. We either merge, join forces, or we lose,” writer and activist Naomi Klein said in 2019.
With Trump as president, things will undoubtedly get worse before they get better. We need to build a strong left to fight fascism during Trump’s presidency and to build a just green future in its aftermath. To do so, climate activists must put their words into action when they say they fight for every living being.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bring on the Climate Doomers! We Need More of Them
Sure, there might be a few people who will drink from the doomer cup and curl into fetal surrender. But there will be far more who will take this message and fight back.
Sep 15, 2024
I recently complained that public narratives about climate—those promoted on so called mainstream platforms, and featured in cryptic one-liners from Democratic Party hopefuls—boil down to evasive bullshit.
We are rather stuck with a climate narrative that offers two wrong answers, and, in its bifurcated and reductionist limitations, rather mirrors our two party system that offers two, and only two bad choices. The Republicans loudly tell us that climate overheating is an outright hoax, or some minor and wholly natural fluctuation of geological cycles. The Democrats counter this with a fetishized future of wind and solar power. Meanwhile corporate arsonists burn coal, oil and gas with ever more maniacal fervor.
I don't need to debunk Republican climate orthodoxy—it thrives on drooling acolytes who have capitulated to facile explanations. The popular Democratic Party fairytale on climate, however, may need to be examined here—many of us mindlessly accept that a future of limitless indulgence will inevitably come to pass. Wind and sunlight shine, and blow upon the faces of the rich and poor alike. Once we harvest these free gifts from creation, the collective wealth of our species will be "decoupled" from the alleged finite resources of the planet. We can all have everything we want. It will be as if we each had our own private Amazon/Walmart nirvana. The climate apocalypse has raged against a population morally and cognitively broken by false hopes.
Even if we pretend that human society will lurch into a utopian phase with no war, no overproduction and no burning of fossil fuels, it may be too late to prevent wholesale species extinction and further environmental collapse.
Many of us have been so disabled by impossible promises that we miss four enormous points: 1) Nations cannot create energy systems to harvest the unlimited wind and sunlight without exhausting planetary resources. 2) The required extracted materials to manufacture solar panels and renewable storage batteries must be stolen from the Global South. 3) Renewable energy under capitalism does not replace fossil fuels—it creates additional growth thereby expanding the need to burn even more fossil fuels. 4) The collapse of our ecosystems from greenhouse gasses and industrial poisons is so far along that massive sea level rise, heating and degradation of oceans (coral reef bleaching, anoxic waters, fish die offs) and inland desertification will inevitably continue well into the future by the sheer momentum already launched. Even if we pretend that human society will lurch into a utopian phase with no war, no overproduction and no burning of fossil fuels, it may be too late to prevent wholesale species extinction and further environmental collapse.
The climate/environmental momentum toward hell, however, is but one component that drives inevitable pessimism. Far worse is the suicidal intentions of corporations, governments, and our concomitant air of mass indifference. Most of us are not resigned from a sense of hopelessness, but disabled by unwarranted optimism, or buoyed by a delusional faith in technology and reason. Even on the left there is little narrative climate clarity—our confusion likely inspires triumphant chuckles in the private board meetings of the oil industry. One truly bizarre story told in progressive circles is that mass resistance to environmental destruction has been eroded by "doomerism."
Here, for example, is Nathan Robinson's take on climate from a piece in Current Affairs:
Writing about climate change in a way that makes people feel scared and hopeless, like they are going to die in a wildfire whether they like it or not, is, in my opinion, part of why climate coverage is such a “ratings killer.” My suspicion is not that nobody wants to confront the subject of climate change—Don’t Look Up faces the matter head-on, and is hugely popular—but that if discussion of it just feels disempowering and depressing, there is no reason for anyone to read about it. Here at Current Affairs, two of our most popular recent articles have been on climate change, but the underlying message has been about taking action rather than merely forecasting the inevitable apocalypse.) I do not think it is helpful to tell anyone to “settle into the trans-apocalypse.” No! Join the Sunrise Movement and throw political leaders who refuse to act on climate out of office.
Robinson's warnings about the dangers of large-scale pessimism echo those of Michael Mann who asserted that "Doomerism is the new denial." As an aside, I must mention that I am an admirer of both Robinson and Mann. The former is one of our most important progressive writers (and the first editor to post one of my pieces on a large platform!) while Mann has been a critically important scientist in detailing the trajectory of our climate. His "Hockey Stick" climate graphs inspired the term and popularized the concept.
But the entire construct of doomerism (as Robinson and Mann understand it) rests on a shibboleth—is inaction really founded on collective despair—or is fear of doomerism another distracting trope? Do masses of people go from understanding that corporate goons burn our world to a crisp, to tossing up their hands and saying, “Fuck it, it’s hopeless?” At some sudden moment in time do they simply come (so the story of doomerism goes) to accept that there is no point to civil disobedience? Are we truly disabled due to a vision of unstoppable, irredeemable collapse? To the contrary, perhaps pessimism inevitably accompanies an honest appraisal of our precarious environmental future.
The oil industry understands with pristine clarity that hopeless people are as likely to respond with violent rage as with passivity.
If doomerism is really the "new denial," if a brigade of fatalistic and resigned people eagerly reject hope and let the oil industry off the hook, we would expect to see screeds by Guy McPherson and Eliot Jacobson posted prominently at The Heartland Institute.
However, we see no such thing. The last thing that oil companies and fascist think tanks want to convey to the public is that corporate crimes have ruined the planet and nothing can be done to change it. The oil industry understands with pristine clarity that hopeless people are as likely to respond with violent rage as with passivity. Doomerism is not the new denial. In fact, you will never see a word of pessimism on an oil industry funded propaganda platform. The industry honchos want your brain to be infused with optimism—hope, upbeat faith in human schemes to find new and better ways serves the cause of energy profits. Here is a Chevron happy ad to prove my point.
- YouTubeyoutu.be
Recent Pew research shows that some 63% of US citizens feel that climate is not the most critical issue facing the country. Less than a third of U.S. adults favor phasing out fossil fuels. We are clearly not a nation beset by fatalistic resignation, and collective environmental surrender, but, rather, a country collectively neutered by Chevron-style ad campaigns.
Even our best climate narratives stumble at the point where capitalism enters the story. Many writers insert a ghostly entity known as "we," as in a superbly written piece by Priya Satia entitled, "The Way We Talk About Climate Change is Wrong."
We will not be ushered past the grim reaper by optimists.
Satia argues quite originally that the notion of time that is indispensable to the capitalist mindset—the prioritizing of the future as it exists in the concept of delayed gratification—drives the system of imperial plunder and overconsumption. But who is the "we" in Satia's narrative that talks about climate in the wrong way?
There is no we—no public that owns a unique climate narrative. "We" are all tools of industry and politicians. Our climate narratives have been injected into our heads by means of well practiced repetition. Satia argues that indigenous people have historically lived according to natural rhythms. They have, from their intimacy with the earth, developed the capacity to take pleasure in the moment (a perspective embraced by some western writers as well, such as Thoreau). The political force needed to initiate a mass movement willing to abandon capitalist addictions for a deeper happiness can only take place under the leadership and passion of people with little to lose.
Even a writer with the depth of Priya Satia reduces climate mitigation to an act of mental transformation. She understands that capitalist mindsets comprise an obstacle, but does not explicitly discuss the critical preliminary task—the overthrowing of capitalism. The leadership in such an improbable effort—if we can even imagine it—will have to come from people who conceive of their choices in the darkest terms. If we are to survive another century, doomers will be the key to an eleventh hour reprieve. We will not be ushered past the grim reaper by optimists.
Extinction Rebellion insists that governments tell the truth about climate. If this were to happen, doomerism would flood our collective mindset—most of us would be doomers. Governments know that they can only retain power by sugar coating the climate story with fantasies about solar powered utopias.
A few years ago both Jonathan Franzen and Roy Scranton wrote, in effect, that it is highly unlikely that a massive climate catastrophe can be averted. Both were attacked in intellectual circles despite the fact that neither discouraged climate activism, and neither had access to platforms affecting mass opinion. Nor were their positions illogical considering what we know about capitalist history. I believe that the real threats to climate centered civil disobedience are not pessimists from the literary world, but optimists from corporate propaganda platforms, party politicians and mainstream media. Barack Obama stated at the 2024 DNC Convention that the U.S. will "lead the way on climate." If only those espousing Pollyannaish bullshit were attacked the way that Franzen was, the climate future might be less dire.
The fiercest fighters might well be those who have no chance to succeed.
In short, we need doomers—people encouraged to use their platform to scream that we are fucked. There might be a few people who will drink from the doomer cup and curl into fetal surrender. There will be far more who will take this message and fight back.
Anyone familiar with the Nazi Holocaust recalls that prisoners confined to the Warsaw Ghetto only rebelled when all hope was lost. Hopelessness has historically been the driver of action. Perhaps Nat Turner was a doomer, John Brown as well. The fiercest fighters might well be those who have no chance to succeed. I am not saying that we have no hope to survive and maybe even flourish, but anyone who does not consider that hopelessness may be a rational response to current reality is living in a fantasy world.
Hope is a tranquilizer. The first step to mass civil disobedience involves a shared pessimism, a deep understanding that we are truly and inescapably fucked. Only then can we form a movement that has a chance. Nathan Robinson and Michael Mann are two brilliant figures but dead wrong about doomers. We need more of them—there can never be enough.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular